Five Cases Worth Reviewing


Lara Jade Coton Versus Bob Burge and TVX Films
Laura Jade Coton was a 14-year-old schoolgirl in England when she shot a self-portrait wearing a top hat. She was still under 18 when Bob Burge, owner of TVX Films put the photo on the cover of a porn film called “Body Magic.”

Lara Jade, now an 18-year old photography student, had placed the image on deviantART, protected (she’d hoped) with a watermark and copyright symbol.

After being told that her self-portrait was being used to promote porn, Lara Jade contacted Bob Burge who was less than polite. Complaining that her photo was harming sales anyway, he promised to change the cover of his Hustler-rated DVD.

Months later, ads for the film featuring Lara’s image could still be found on the Web.

It was only when Lara Jade used her Flickr page to describe what happened that things really took off. She received press coverage around the world, comments of support from hundreds of photographers… and a court case filed against Bob Burge and TVX films in the summer of 2007.


Flickr Member Sues Virgin Mobile after Appearing in Australian Ad
Lara Jade isn’t the only underage victim of a company trying to promote itself. Alison Chang, a 16-year-old from Bedford, Texas was photographed flashing a victory sign at a church fundraiser in April 2007. The photographer, a youth counselor, posted the image on his Flickr stream with a Creative Commons license.

Advertising executives at Virgin Mobile Australia grabbed the image and placed it on at least one bus shelter with the caption “Dump your pen friend.”

Ryan Zehl, an attorney for Ms. Chang was quoted in the Dallas Morning News saying:

If a company uses your face in its ads without your consent, then you’re entitled to whatever money those ads generate for the company… It’s Texas law.

Australia, of course, is a long way from Texas but the law suit does touch on all sorts of important issues, including model releases, privacy and copyright as it relates to Creative Commons licenses.


Corbis Sued For Losing Photos
Most photographers have nightmares about something happening to their images. So they keep back-ups and they trust stock companies to do the same.

Or at least to look after their photos properly.

Corbis didn’t do either. Early in November 2007, photographer Chris Usher won his suit against the stock company after discovering that it had lost 12,640 of his analog images — one in four of the images the photographer had submitted.

Usher, who used to represent himself, had signed up to Corbis to supplement his sales to Time, Newsweek and other major publications. He asked for his images back when he grew disappointed at Corbis’s licensing deals and billing practices.

Corbis initially denied that they had lost any of Usher’s photos but admitted on the first day in court that they might have misplaced a “mere 5,877.”

This isn’t the first time that Corbis has been sued for losing photos. Arthur Grace was awarded $472,000 after Sygma, a French stock company that Corbis bought in 1999, lost 40,000 of his slides. That case will receive a new hearing and could lead to even higher damages. Chris Usher will have to wait until December to learn the size of his court-awarded compensation.


Passer-By Sues Philip-Lorca diCorcia for Selling his Photo
In general, if you’re in a public place, you can photograph it. And in general, if you want to sell an image of someone for commercial use, you need their permission.

Philip-Lorca diCorcia though, thought he was on safe ground when he set up strobe rigs in New York in 2006 and photographed people walking down the street. He didn’t put the photos on ads or mount them on billboards. He placed them in an exhibition and sold them as prints.

And he was sued by Emo Nussenzweig, an Orthodox Jew, who appeared in one of the photos and considered the sale both an invasion of his privacy and a breach of his religious rights.

The court ruled that although ten copies of the images had sold for up to $30,000 each, they were still considered works of art, were not commercial and were therefore protected under the First Amendment. Nussenzweig’s appeal was filed too late to be considered.


Goosed Farmer Seeks $7.5 Million in Damages for Photo
You might be able to argue that a work of art is not commercial but photographer John Burwell could struggle to make the same claim for an image he shot that appeared on greeting card.

The photo, which was taken in 1996 at the State Fair of Virginia, shows poultry farmer Andrew Marsinko with a goose on his knee. Burwell submitted the image to Jupitermedia who licensed it to a company called Leanin’ Tree.

Leanin’ Tree used the photo on the cover of a greeting card with the caption “Since it’s your birthday, you decide — Would you rather get spanked… or goosed?”

Marsinko, who was a well-known figure in goose-breeding circles, is now an even more well-known figure.

He is suing Burwell and his wife, Jupitermedia, Getty Images (who bought the rights to the image) and Leanin’ Tree, for defamation, unauthorized use of a picture, conspiracy and attempted conspiracy, and reckless infliction of emotional distress. Marsinko claims that he did not sign a model release form.

Photography: Courtesy of Roanoke County Circuit Court

If you’re not certain about photography law, talk to a lawyer or check out the writings of Carolyn Wright or Bert Krages.

"...it sure used to be."

In the Bag: Filters


Polarizers
From Digital Image Maker
Light has properties of both waves and particles. In the case of polarizing filters it is useful to think of it as a wave. These waves wiggle or vibrate up and down. Light reflected from most normal objects has light rays that are vibrating in all different orientations, some up and down, some left and right and some at all angles in between.

Light reflecting off of some objects, like water, however, has all or most or the light rays vibrating in the same way. The light is said to be polarized. A linear polarizing filter can be thought of as being a railing fence that only lets through light rays that are vibrating in the same orientation as the slots in the fence.
Rotate the polarizing filter and the light is blocked. Even with unpolarized light with light rays of all orientations, when you use a polarizing filter it will block the light not of the correct orientation, hence the general filter factor of a polarizer and the fact that your exposure needs to change by approximately two stops to compensate.
Modern cameras (both film and digital, due to the exposure and autofocus systems) can have issues with linear polarizing filters. So we use a circular polarizer. This comprises two filters, a normal linear polarizer followed by an additional layer that depolarizes the light. Since the polarizing part has done all the work, the result is exactly the same as with a linear polarizer.
A polarizer filter will normally be a little thicker than other types of filter and has one part which screws onto your lens ad another which is rotated to change the plane of polarization that is let through the filter. Circular polarizing filters will normally be a bit more expensive than linear ones. As with all filters you put in front of your nice, expensive camera lenses, it is better to use a good quality polarizer to minimize distortions or aberrations being introduced by the filter.
The parts of a photographic scene whose light may be strongly polarized, and thus be most affected by the use of a polarizing filter, are:
  • Reflections off of any non-metallic surface, including water, leaves and glass;

  • The blue sky 90 degrees away from the sun.

So depending on the orientation of the polarizer, you can:
  • Darken the sky;
  • Cut out glare reflections when trying to shoot through a window;
  • Reduce or eliminate reflections in a lake or sea;
  • By removing all the tiny reflections off of things like leaves and grass, increase the color saturation of a scene.
Because the orientations of individual leaves and grass will all be different, you will get some improvement is color saturation no matter what the rotation of the filter because some reflections will be removed. So some glare is removed always when a polarizer is fitted.


Mechanical Vignetting
on the Canon EF-S 10-22mm Lens

Mechanical vignetting occurs when light is partially blocked by external objects such as thick or stacked filters, secondary lenses, and improper lens hoods. The corner darkening can be gradual or abrupt, depending on the lens aperture.

On a super-wide angle lens at the widest setting, the field of view is so wide that the metal ring of a filter can vignette the corners of the image.

EF-S 10-22mm without filter

EF-S 10-22mm with filter
The onset and amount of mechanical vignetting depends on how far out the filter ring(s) extends from the front of the lens. 'Stacking' filters obviously increases the likelihood of running into a vignetting issue.


'Thin' Filters
So called 'Thin' filters are designed to minimize the thickness of the filter itself, to reduce the chances of mechanical vignetting. Most brands offer thin versions of the common filters.

Important Note: Some 'thin' filters do not have front threads, and therefore will not accept a typical lens cap.

Another possible way to avoid mechanical vignetting is to use a larger diameter filter combined with a step-up ring. This is probably not practical for the EF-S 10-22 due to its 77mm filter size.

ND Filters
Neutral Density filters come in two basic varieties: solid and graduated. Both function by simply cutting down the light that is transmitted to the film, just like someone turned off the lights. The key difference is between the two types is, of course, the graduation.
Solid neutral density filters typically come as traditional screw-on filters in a variety of sizes and strengths. Their main purpose is to allow longer exposures when you can't or don't want to stop the lens down any further. This is usually to afford longer exposure times when photographing moving water to get that silky effect, but can also be used as another means to control depth-of-field. Owners of digital cameras may find these filters especially handy if their slowest film speed is no better than ISO 200.

Like everything that has an impact on exposure, these filters are measured in stops, but manufacturers seem to have a hard time agreeing on how to label them. While some are politely labeled with the number of stops of light they block, others such as Tiffen and Lee use the filter grades 0.3, 0.6, and 0.9 for one, two and three stops. Then there's B+W and Hoya who prefer calling the same thing 2x, 4x, and 8x (known as the filter factor).
The idea with GND's is that one end is clear and the other is neutral density. In between the two ends, the filter transitions through either a soft-edged or a harder edged graduation which allows you minimize the likelihood that the transition will be visible within the picture frame.

The aim is to position the filter within the image by sliding it up and down in order to equalize the brightness across the frame.

The trick to getting the graduation in the right place is practice. By stopping the lens down to your shooting aperture and then moving the filter around, it becomes much easier to see the edge of the graduation. Bracketing your compositions slightly with respect to how the filter is positioned in order to make sure you've gotten it in the right place can help if you are unsure. Don't pay any attention to where the graduation appears to be when you look at the filter sitting there on the end of your lens. It may seem like it covers a third of it, but if the lens is stopped down at all, it may not even cover any of the actual image; it is only what you can see through the stopped-down diaphragm that counts, not the entire lens diameter.

Photo Manipulation



"Any change to a news photo - any violation of that moment - is a lie. Big or small, any lie damages your credibility." --John Long, NPPA co-chair


In an Iranian Image, a Missile Too Many

By Mike Nizza and Patrick J. Lyons

As news spread across the world of Iran’s provocative missile tests, so did an image of four missiles heading skyward in unison. Unfortunately, it appeared to contain one too many missiles, a point that had not emerged before the photo was used on the front pages of The Los Angeles Times, The Financial Times, The Chicago Tribune and several other newspapers as well as on BBC News, MSNBC, Yahoo! News, NYTimes.com and many other major news Web sites.


Agence France-Presse said that it obtained the image from the Web site of Sepah News, the media arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, on Wednesday. But there was no sign of it there later in the day. Today, The Associated Press distributed what appeared to be a nearly identical photo from the same source, but without the fourth missile.


As the above illustration shows, the second missile from the right appears to be the sum of two other missiles in the image. The contours of the billowing smoke match perfectly near the ground, as well in the immediate wake of the missile. Only a small black dot in the reddish area of exhaust seems to differ from the missile to its left, though there are also some slight variations in the color of the smoke and the sky.

Does Iran’s state media use Photoshop? The charge has been leveled before. So far, though, it can’t be said with any certainty whether there is any official Iranian involvement in this instance. Sepah apparently published the three-missile version of the image today without further explanation.

For its part, Agence France-Presse retracted its four-missile version this morning, saying that the image was “apparently digitally altered” by Iranian state media. The fourth missile “has apparently been added in digital retouch to cover a grounded missile that may have failed during the test,” the agency said. Later, it published an article quoting several experts backing that argument.

Along with major doubts about the image, American intelligence officials had larger questions on exactly how many missiles were fired. One defense official said that “at least 7, and possibly up to 10″ had taken flight in all, though the intelligence data was still being sorted out. Only one of them was said to be a Shahab 3.

Throughout the day, several news sites have taken steps to disown the photograph that they ran on Wednesday, including LATimes.com and MSNBC.com.

In a sentiment no doubt echoed by news organizations everywhere, an MSNBC editor acknowledged that the four-missile picture was initially welcomed with open arms. “As the media editor working the msnbc.com home page yesterday, I was frustrated with the quality of a fuzzy video image we published of the Iranian missile launch,” said Rich Shulman, the network’s associate multimedia editor. “So I was thrilled when the top image crossed the news wires.”
Mark Mazzetti contributed reporting from Washington.